DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶ 0006 line 6 reads "programming instructions that that instruct" which appears to be a typographical error and should read "programming instructions that instruct" to improve clarity.
¶ 0006 line 15 and ¶ 0008 line 5-6 read "an identify" which appears to be a typographical error and should read "an identity" to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5-6, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 line 4 reads "programming instructions that that instruct" which appears to be a typographical error and should read "programming instructions that instruct" to improve clarity.
Claim 5 line 2 and claim 12 line 4 read "an identify" which appears to be a typographical error and should read "an identity" to improve clarity.
Claim 6 line 4 reads "the agricultural machine and other machine" which appears to be continuity error since there is no antecedent basis for the other machine. It is unclear to the examiner if “the” was meant to be distributive (i.e. mean “the agricultural machine” and “the other machine”) or if the other machine is accidentally missing an article before the term. This should read " the agricultural machine and another machine" to improve clarity and maintain continuity.
Claim 14 line 1 reads “the pair condition” which appears to be a continuity error and should read “the pairing condition” to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
“Selected” is being interpreted to include machine based selection such as demonstrated by ¶ 0030-0038. E.g., the “light color” of claim 2 and the “selected light color” of claim 9 are not understood to be patentably distinct terms since both claims comprise a processor activating (i.e. “selecting”) a light color in response to a fill level.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-7, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 6-7 and 14 detail activating a second light source based on an “association” between the agricultural machine and another machine. It is unclear to the examiner the metes and bounds of the limitation “association”.
Claim 7 attempts to define this term, but in doing so, only appears to define what the agricultural machine and other machine are. Claim 7 does not actually provide clarity on what quantifies an association, and instead, provides further confusion since, as written, the offloading machine and receiving machine are not clearly linked to the agricultural machine and other machine even though examiner presumes linking was intended. That is, as written, an association in claim 7 appears to be that literally any offloading machine and receiving machine exist regardless of spatial, temporal, or other relation to the agricultural machine and other machine. It is unclear if patent infringement would occur if a light on an agricultural machine is programmed to be always on (since offloading and unloading machines exist in the world), to turn on when performing offloading to a receiving machine, to turn on based on proximity of the agricultural vehicle to both offloading and receiving machines, or to turn on for another reason entirely.
Claim 14 at least provides some context that the association is comprised in a pairing condition, but this still fails to clearly indicate what the applicant meant by this term. It is unclear if patent infringement would occur if a light on an agricultural machine is programmed to turn on when the agricultural machine is proximate to another machine, to turn on when the agricultural machine and other machine are paired, to always be on if the agricultural machine has any capability whatsoever to be paired to another machine regardless of actual presence of the other machine, or turn on for another reason entirely.
A review of the specification does not provide any further details regarding the term that can be used when interpreting the metes and bounds of the limitation. Further, an association between two machines does not appear to be a well known term in the art. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, and the claims are considered indefinite. For the purpose of examination, an association between two machines will be understood as a pairing status between the two machines as detailed in claim 19.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the characteristic" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To overcome this rejection, examiner recommends amending claim 17 to be dependent on claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Chervenka et al. US 20100285855 A1 (hereinafter Chervenka).
Regarding claim 8,
Chervenka teaches
A computer-implemented method performed by one or more processors (¶ 0030 “Electronic controller 46 preferably comprises a digital microprocessor”; see cited sections detailed below regarding performing the method with the controller) for automatically controlling a light arrangement (Abstract “a display (48) disposed in front of the operator in the direction of travel for displaying a fill level of the grain tank”; ¶ 0042 “Electronic controller 46 executes the series of instructions shown in FIG. 4 to perform this task”) associated with an agricultural machine (Figure 1), the method comprising the following operations:
detecting a fill level of a storage container of the agricultural machine (Figure 4 80 “calculate fill level”) based on a sensor output of a sensor (see ¶ 0048 regarding details on calculating the fill level based on the level sensor); and
operating a first light source of the agricultural machine according to a light parameter program based on the detected fill level (Figure 2 82 “drive display to show fill level”), the first light source operated at different light parameter programs corresponding to different fill levels (see Figures 3A-3F which provide different display options which are all capable of changing illuminated regions based on the fill level; see ¶ 0034-0040 for more details on each display variant).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Chervenka reference teaches all of claim 8 as detailed above.
Chervenka further teaches that
operating the first light source of the agricultural machine according to the light parameter program based on the detected fill level includes operating the first light source with one or more of a selected light color, a selected light sequence (¶ 0034-0037 and 0039-0040 discloses display elements can be sequentially energized based on fill level; ¶ 0038 discloses elements can be selectively activated in a segment display to show the fill level percent), a selected light sequence rate, or a duration of light operation based on the detected fill level.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Chervenka reference teaches all of claim 8 as detailed above.
Chervenka teaches that
operating the first light source of the agricultural machine according to the light parameter program based on the detected fill level comprises operating the first light source according to a first light parameter program in response to the storage container having a first fill level and operating the first light source at a second light parameter program in response to the storage container having a second fill level, the first light parameter program being different than the second light parameter program and the first fill level being different than the second fill level (¶ 0034-0040 provide examples of illuminating elements of a display based on the fill level; see also Figures 3A-3F which clearly demonstrate different elements correspond to different fill levels; any two different, arbitrary fills levels associated with different light sequences can be understood as applicable to this claim).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chervenka in view of Dilts US 11202406 B2 (hereinafter Dilts).
Regarding claim 1 and 15,
Chervenka teaches
An agricultural combine harvester (Figure 1) comprising:
a body (Figure 1);
a grain tank provided on the body (Figure 1 grain tank 20), the grain tank configured to store harvested grain (Abstract “a grain tank (20) on the chassis (18) for storing harvested grain”);
a sensor configured to sense the harvested grain in the grain tank (¶ 0024 “A level sensor 42 is disposed to sense the level of grain inside grain tank 20”);
a first light source provided on the body (Abstract “a display (48) disposed in front of the operator in the direction of travel for displaying a fill level of the grain tank”; see also Figures 1-3F, particularly cabin 18 and display 48); and
an electronic controller (¶ 0030 “Electronic controller") including:
one or more processors (¶ 0030 “Electronic controller 46 preferably comprises a digital microprocessor”); and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium coupled to the one or more processors (¶ 0030 “Electronic controller 46 preferably comprises a digital microprocessor with RAM and ROM”) and executing programming instructions by the one or more processors (¶ 0042 “Electronic controller 46 executes the series of instructions shown in FIG. 4 to perform this task”), the programming instructions instruct the one or more processors to:
determine a fill level of the harvested grain in the grain tank (Figure 4 80 “calculate fill level”) based on an output of the sensor indicative of the sensed harvested grain (see ¶ 0048 regarding details on calculating the fill level based on the level sensor); and
operate the first light source according to a selected manner responsive to the determined fill level (Figure 2 82 “drive display to show fill level”), the selected manner being different for different fill levels (see Figures 3A-3F which provide different display options which are all capable of changing illuminated regions based on the fill level; see ¶ 0034-0040 for more details on each display variant).
Chervenka does not teach that
the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium stores the programming instructions.
Dilts teaches that
the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium stores the programming instructions (column 8 lines 5-22 “any of the functionality performed by the controller 310 described herein, such as the steps shown in FIG. 5, are implemented in software code or instructions which are tangibly stored on a tangible computer readable medium”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Chervenka to incorporate the teachings of Dilts such that the controller memory of Chervenka can store instructions as taught by Dilts to perform the method of Chervenka since providing memory storing instructions to perform a method is routine within the art. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for easy repeatability of the method using the controller.
Examiner notes that Dilts may alternatively be utilized to teach at least the method steps, including dependent claims, which Chervenka also teaches (see Figure 5 for example). Therefore, examiner advises the applicant that any amendments to overcome Chervenka should also be performed to overcome the teachings of Dilts. For conciseness of record, Chervenka is primarily relied upon.
Regarding claims 2 and 20, the modified Chervenka reference teaches all of claims 1 and 15 as detailed above. The same grounds of rejection applied regarding claim 9 as detailed above are applied regarding claims 2 and 20.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Chervenka reference teaches all of claims 1 as detailed above. The same grounds of rejection applied regarding claim 10 as detailed above are applied regarding claim 3.
Claim(s) 4-5, 11-12, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chervenka as applied to claim 8 above and Chervenka as modified by Dilts as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Yu et al. US 20250078778 A1 (hereinafter Yu).
Regarding claims 4-5, 11-12, and 16-17; the modified Chervenka reference teaches all of claims 1, 8, and 15 as detailed above.
Chervenka does not teach
a second light source configured to be selectively operated,
wherein the programming instructions further include programming instructions configured to instruct the one or more processors to operate the second light source according to a characteristic of the agricultural combine harvester;
wherein the characteristic of the agricultural combine harvester includes an identify [SIC] of an operator of the agricultural combine harvester.
Yu teaches
a second light source configured to be selectively operated (¶ 0007 discloses a display on a vehicle body to display selected contents),
wherein the programming instructions further include programming instructions configured to instruct the one or more processors to operate the second light source according to a characteristic of the vehicle (¶ 0018 discloses identifying a user, and when the user has an authorized designation, the display on the body of the vehicle displays a specified pattern according to the designation; see also Figures 15A-16 for an example of this display used for police and a delinquent in a car chase);
wherein the characteristic of the vehicle includes an identify [SIC] of an operator of the vehicle (¶ 0018 and Figures 15A-16).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have (further) modified Chervenka to incorporate the teachings of Yu such that the combine of Chervenka can also contain a display on the outer body of the combine wherein the display is illuminated with a pattern according to the operator’s identity as taught by Yu. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for easy identification of vehicle operators at a glance as exemplified by Yu (¶ 0070).
Claim(s) 6-7, 13-14, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chervenka as applied to claim 8 above and Chervenka as modified by Dilts as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Suleman et al. US 20200178049 A1 (hereinafter Suleman).
Regarding claims 6-7, 13-14, and 18-19; the modified Chervenka reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Chervenka does not teach
a third light source configured to be selectively operated,
wherein the programming instructions further include programming instructions configured to instruct the one or more processors to operate the third light source based on a pairing status of the agricultural combine harvester,
wherein the pairing status includes a status of the agricultural combine harvester being paired with a receiving vehicle configured to receive the harvested grain during an unloading operation of the agricultural combine harvester.
Suleman teaches
a third light source configured to be selectively operated (Figure 2 display 76),
wherein the programming instructions further include programming instructions configured to instruct the one or more processors to operate the third light source based on a pairing status of the agricultural combine harvester (¶ 0047 “the confirmation indicating acceptance to pair may be presented on the display of the selected agricultural vehicle and/or the requesting agricultural vehicle”),
wherein the pairing status includes a status of the agricultural combine harvester being paired with a receiving vehicle (¶ 0047 discloses outputting an acceptance notification to pair two vehicles; ¶ 0012 provides examples of vehicles being a harvester and a haul vehicle) configured to receive the harvested grain during an unloading operation of the agricultural combine harvester (¶ 0012 “the second agricultural vehicle 12 may be a haul vehicle 12 configured to dock with the harvester vehicle 10, receive the harvested crops from the harvester vehicle 10, and transport the harvested crops 16”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Chervenka to incorporate the teachings of Suleman such that the combine of Chervenka can further include a display used to indicate a pairing status with a haul vehicle for performing autonomous unloading as taught by Suleman. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce operator error associated with manual unloading, improve efficiency of unloading by making the process autonomous between paired vehicles, and improve operator awareness by displaying paired status.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Golduber US 20200254926 A1 discloses a license plate display for a vehicle that displays a user’s identity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
